-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
How bad are blunts (swishers) for your lungs?
- Thread starter TwoOhSix!
- Start date
patrickbateman
Member
a blunt is def. the most unsafe way to smoke containing 100's if not 1000's of toxins, joint next, then bowl, water pipe, and vaporizer being the most healthy besides bake'n it into foods.
None of the above will kill you.
Cigarettes will. They will also **** up your teeth, give you any # of cancers, and turn attractive girls into stinky ashtrays.
None of the above will kill you.
Cigarettes will. They will also **** up your teeth, give you any # of cancers, and turn attractive girls into stinky ashtrays.
Last edited:
Perfect Haze
Member
What are the major strategies to reduce the risks of cannabis smoking?
If you smoke tobacco then you are not going to damage your health further by smoking cannabis. However if you wish to reduce your smoking activities then smoking cannabis with a high THC content is sensible as you will smoke less.
Mostly cannabis is smoked together with tobacco or other dried herbs. This procedure should be avoided to minimize the inhalation of smoke from burnt plant material. Many Dutch nationals smoke joints made from pure cannabis.
Pipes are superior to cigarettes in some situations in that they easily allow the person to smoke small amounts of pure high-grade cannabis. The percentage of tars in the smoke is reduced by condensation on the pipe walls. Pipes should be cleaned frequently. Water pipes are inferior to cigarettes and should be avoided.
Always use cannabis that is free of natural contaminants and adulterants.
Tests conducted by Dr Gieringer showed that vapourisers which heat marijuana to 180-190°C vaporised THC below the burning point of cellulose and other plant material also the production of polycyclic hydrocarbons was reduced. The best vaporizer delivered 10 parts of tar to one part of cannabinoids, cannabis cigarettes yielded a ratio of 13:1 (average), and water pipes an average of 27:1.
Thus, the best vaporizers achieved a performance ratio about 25% higher than the unfiltered cannabis cigarette, while water pipes were less favourable than cigarettes. The use of a filter in a cannabis cigarette was not advantageous since it not only filtered the tars, but also the cannabinoids. Indeed, the performance ratio was decreased by about 30% compared to the unfiltered cigarette.
In a new study Gieringer was able to demonstrate that combustion products were substantially reduced by using another vaporizer. The used device produced THC at a temperature of 185°C while completely eliminating benzene, toluene and naphthalene. Significant amounts of benzene began to appear at temperatures of 200°C, while combustion occurred around 230°C or above.
Traces of THC were in evidence as low as 140°C. Carbon monoxide and tars were both qualitatively reduced by the vaporizer, but were not quantificated in this study. However, a significant reduction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons was assumed since vaporized cannabis emitted a thin gray vapor and the plant material was left with a green to greenish-brown "toasted" appearance, whereas the combusted sample produced thick smoke and turned to ash.
Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 2001
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects of water filtration on marijuana smoke: a literature review
Nicholas V. Cozzi, Ph.D.
A drug derived from marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), formulated in sesame oil and encapsulated in soft gelatin capsules (Marinol®; Roxane), is currently available as a prescription drug for the treatment of two diseases or conditions. It is indicated for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy, and for the AIDS wasting syndrome. The marijuana plant in smokeable form is available to ten patients in the United States for disorders such as glaucoma, spasticity, and the wasting syndrome. Each of these drug delivery systems, oral capsules and smokeable plant, has advantages and disadvantages, and each may be appropriate in particular circumstances. However, a drug delivery system that combines the rapid and reliable onset and ability to easily titrate an ingested dose (such as occurs by smoking marijuana cigarettes) with the least health risk (such as occurs by oral ingestion of capsules) would also be desirable. The use of water-filtered marijuana smoke, as produced by a water pipe, is one little-explored alternative. This article reviews some of the scientific work that has been done regarding the effects of water filtration on the composition and effects of marijuana and tobacco smoke.
While most of the research on water filtration has focused on tobacco smoke, the work with marijuana smoke has revealed that, except for their respective psychoactive components (nicotine and cannabinoids), both smokes share many common constituents and physical properties. Many of the results obtained from studies of tobacco smoke are applicable to marijuana smoke.
In the late 1970's, a group based at the University of Athens Medical School (Greece) conducted a series of chemical and pharmacological studies on marijuana and tobacco smoke.1-4 These scientists tested smoke that had been filtered through a water pipe and also tested the water itself, which contained both soluble and insoluble compounds. Chemical analysis revealed many different compounds in the smoke and in the water, as expected from the combustion of plant materials. The water did trap some THC, as well as other psychoactive compounds, however, most of the THC present in the marijuana passed through the water pipe unchanged. Pharmacological tests (in mice) revealed that some of the water-trapped marijuana compounds were responsible for producing catatonia and for suppressing spontaneous motor activity. In contrast, the water-filtered smoke itself did not affect spontaneous motor activity and did not induce catatonia, though it was richer in THC. These results indicate that water filtration removes some behaviorally active compounds in preference to others; this may be important when comparing the therapeutic effects of whole marijuana smoke to water-filtered smoke.
Research has shown that water filtration reduces both the amount of particulate matter and the number and quantity of toxic substances in the smoke that passes through it. In a 1963 study by Hoffman et al.,5 the water pipe was found to retain 90% of the phenol and 50% of the particulate matter and benzo-a-pyrene of the original tobacco smoke. In another study,6 tobacco smoke components that were passed through a water pipe showed only a minor hyperplasic reaction and no sebaceous gland destruction when they were painted onto mouse skin. (The application of substances to mouse skin to assess carcinogenic potential is a classic toxicological test; the induction of abnormal cell proliferation [hyperplasia] is a red flag.) In contrast, tobacco smoke condensate that was not water-filtered induced strong hyperplasia and complete sebaceous gland destruction when applied to mouse skin in the same concentration. Salem and Sami,7 also using the mouse skin test, showed that there was a significant reduction of carcinogenic potential in water-filtered smoke compared to the water remaining in the pipe i.e., the water-trapped material was more carcinogenic than the smoke that passed through it. Indeed, when analyzed by thin layer chromatography, two carcinogenic agents were identified in the water itself, while only one was identified in the water filtered smoke. Therefore, water filtration removes at least two known carcinogens that would normally be found in the smoke.
Recently, Dr. Gary Huber at the University of Texas and colleagues from Harvard's School of Public Health conducted a cellular toxicity study of marijuana and tobacco smoke.8 This research group showed that passing marijuana or tobacco smoke through water, or even exposing the smoke to a wetted surface of about 48 square inches, effectively removed substances (acrolein and acetaldehyde) which are toxic to alveolar macrophages. Alveolar macrophages are one of the major defense cells of the lung and are an important component of the immune system. When the macrophages were exposed to smoke that was not water filtered, there was a marked impairment of their capacity to kill bacteria. When the smoke was water-filtered, however, there was no reduction in the bactericidal ability of the macrophages, suggesting that marijuana smoke that has been passed through sufficient water will have less impact on the immune system than marijuana smoke that has not been water-filtered. This intriguing finding would be of particular importance when treating patients with the AIDS wasting syndrome.
The laboratory results discussed above parallel what is known from studying human tobacco-smoking populations. Thus, there is substantial epidemiological evidence that among tobacco smokers, those who smoke through a water pipe have a much lower incidence of carcinoma than those who smoke cigarettes or smoke a "regular" pipe or cigars.6,7,9,10
In summary, it appears that water filtration can be effective in removing components from marijuana smoke that are known toxicants, while allowing the THC to pass through relatively intact. The effectiveness of toxicant removal is related to the smoke's water contact area. Specially designed water pipes, incorporating particulate filters and gas dispersion frits would likely be most effective in this regard; the gas dispersion frit serves to break up the smoke into very fine bubbles, thereby increasing its water contact area. While individuals vary greatly in their smoking technique, state of health, dosing regimen, and so on, it seems that many patients could benefit from the use of water pipes to deliver THC. This would allow patients to titrate their dose easily while reducing the health hazard associated with smoke.
REFERENCES
1) Spronck, H.J.W.; Salemink, C.A.; Alikaridis,F.; Papadakis,D. Pyrolysis of cannabinoids: a model experiment in the study of cannabis smoking. Bulletin on Narcotics, 30, 55-59 (1978)
2) Alikaridis,Ph.; Michael,C.M.; Papadakis,D.P.; Kephalas, T.A.; Kiburis,J. Scientific Research on Cannabis. No. 55. Chemical aspects of cannabis smoke produced through water pipes. United Nations Secretariat ST/SOA/SER.S/55, GE. 77-7339, 1-9 (17 June 1977)
3) Savaki,H.E.; Cunha,J.; Carlini,E.A.; Kephalas, T.A. Pharmacological activity of three fractions obtained by smoking cannabis through a water pipe. Bulletin on Narcotics, 28, 49-56 (1976)
4) Lazaratou,H.; Moschovakis,A.; Armagandis,A.; Kapsambelis, V.; Kiburis,J.; Kephalas, T.A. The pharmacological effect of fractions obtained by smoking cannabis through a water pipe. II. A second fractionation step. Experientia, 36, 1407-1408 (1980)
5) Hoffman, D.; Rathkamp, G.; Wynder, E.L. Comparison of the yields of several selected components in the smoke from different tobacco products. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 31, 627-635 (1963)
6) Salem, E.S. Studies on special smoking patterns in Egypt. 5th World Conference on Smoking and Health, Winnipeg, Canada. July 10-15, 1983. Eds: Bola, P; Wright, F.E.
7) Salem, E.S.; Sami, A. Studies on pulmonary manifestations of goza smokers. Chest, 65, 599 (1974)
8) Huber, G.L.; First, M.W.; Grubner, O. Marijuana and tobacco smoke gas-phase cytotoxins. Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, 40, 629-636 (1991)
9) Lubin,J.H.; Li, J.-Y.; Xuan, X.-Z.; Cai,S.K.; Luo, Q.-S.; Yang, L.-F.; Wang, J.-Z.; Yang,L.; Blot, W.J. Risk of lung cancer among cigarette and pipe smokers in Southern China. International Journal of Cancer, 51, 390-395 (1992)
10) Srivastava, Y.C. Oral Leukoplakia. International Surgery, 58, 614-618 (1973)
Acknowledgement:
This study was supported by a grant from MAPS
2105 Robinson Avenue
Sarasota FL 34232
email: [email protected] (Sylvia Thyssen, Network Coordinator)
Copyright © 1995 by Nicholas V. Cozzi, Ph.D. This document may be freely copied and distributed, subject to the following limitations: 1) This document must be copied in its entirety, without modifications; 2) This document may NOT be copied for commercial purposes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you smoke tobacco then you are not going to damage your health further by smoking cannabis. However if you wish to reduce your smoking activities then smoking cannabis with a high THC content is sensible as you will smoke less.
Mostly cannabis is smoked together with tobacco or other dried herbs. This procedure should be avoided to minimize the inhalation of smoke from burnt plant material. Many Dutch nationals smoke joints made from pure cannabis.
Pipes are superior to cigarettes in some situations in that they easily allow the person to smoke small amounts of pure high-grade cannabis. The percentage of tars in the smoke is reduced by condensation on the pipe walls. Pipes should be cleaned frequently. Water pipes are inferior to cigarettes and should be avoided.
Always use cannabis that is free of natural contaminants and adulterants.
Tests conducted by Dr Gieringer showed that vapourisers which heat marijuana to 180-190°C vaporised THC below the burning point of cellulose and other plant material also the production of polycyclic hydrocarbons was reduced. The best vaporizer delivered 10 parts of tar to one part of cannabinoids, cannabis cigarettes yielded a ratio of 13:1 (average), and water pipes an average of 27:1.
Thus, the best vaporizers achieved a performance ratio about 25% higher than the unfiltered cannabis cigarette, while water pipes were less favourable than cigarettes. The use of a filter in a cannabis cigarette was not advantageous since it not only filtered the tars, but also the cannabinoids. Indeed, the performance ratio was decreased by about 30% compared to the unfiltered cigarette.
In a new study Gieringer was able to demonstrate that combustion products were substantially reduced by using another vaporizer. The used device produced THC at a temperature of 185°C while completely eliminating benzene, toluene and naphthalene. Significant amounts of benzene began to appear at temperatures of 200°C, while combustion occurred around 230°C or above.
Traces of THC were in evidence as low as 140°C. Carbon monoxide and tars were both qualitatively reduced by the vaporizer, but were not quantificated in this study. However, a significant reduction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons was assumed since vaporized cannabis emitted a thin gray vapor and the plant material was left with a green to greenish-brown "toasted" appearance, whereas the combusted sample produced thick smoke and turned to ash.
Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 2001
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects of water filtration on marijuana smoke: a literature review
Nicholas V. Cozzi, Ph.D.
A drug derived from marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), formulated in sesame oil and encapsulated in soft gelatin capsules (Marinol®; Roxane), is currently available as a prescription drug for the treatment of two diseases or conditions. It is indicated for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy, and for the AIDS wasting syndrome. The marijuana plant in smokeable form is available to ten patients in the United States for disorders such as glaucoma, spasticity, and the wasting syndrome. Each of these drug delivery systems, oral capsules and smokeable plant, has advantages and disadvantages, and each may be appropriate in particular circumstances. However, a drug delivery system that combines the rapid and reliable onset and ability to easily titrate an ingested dose (such as occurs by smoking marijuana cigarettes) with the least health risk (such as occurs by oral ingestion of capsules) would also be desirable. The use of water-filtered marijuana smoke, as produced by a water pipe, is one little-explored alternative. This article reviews some of the scientific work that has been done regarding the effects of water filtration on the composition and effects of marijuana and tobacco smoke.
While most of the research on water filtration has focused on tobacco smoke, the work with marijuana smoke has revealed that, except for their respective psychoactive components (nicotine and cannabinoids), both smokes share many common constituents and physical properties. Many of the results obtained from studies of tobacco smoke are applicable to marijuana smoke.
In the late 1970's, a group based at the University of Athens Medical School (Greece) conducted a series of chemical and pharmacological studies on marijuana and tobacco smoke.1-4 These scientists tested smoke that had been filtered through a water pipe and also tested the water itself, which contained both soluble and insoluble compounds. Chemical analysis revealed many different compounds in the smoke and in the water, as expected from the combustion of plant materials. The water did trap some THC, as well as other psychoactive compounds, however, most of the THC present in the marijuana passed through the water pipe unchanged. Pharmacological tests (in mice) revealed that some of the water-trapped marijuana compounds were responsible for producing catatonia and for suppressing spontaneous motor activity. In contrast, the water-filtered smoke itself did not affect spontaneous motor activity and did not induce catatonia, though it was richer in THC. These results indicate that water filtration removes some behaviorally active compounds in preference to others; this may be important when comparing the therapeutic effects of whole marijuana smoke to water-filtered smoke.
Research has shown that water filtration reduces both the amount of particulate matter and the number and quantity of toxic substances in the smoke that passes through it. In a 1963 study by Hoffman et al.,5 the water pipe was found to retain 90% of the phenol and 50% of the particulate matter and benzo-a-pyrene of the original tobacco smoke. In another study,6 tobacco smoke components that were passed through a water pipe showed only a minor hyperplasic reaction and no sebaceous gland destruction when they were painted onto mouse skin. (The application of substances to mouse skin to assess carcinogenic potential is a classic toxicological test; the induction of abnormal cell proliferation [hyperplasia] is a red flag.) In contrast, tobacco smoke condensate that was not water-filtered induced strong hyperplasia and complete sebaceous gland destruction when applied to mouse skin in the same concentration. Salem and Sami,7 also using the mouse skin test, showed that there was a significant reduction of carcinogenic potential in water-filtered smoke compared to the water remaining in the pipe i.e., the water-trapped material was more carcinogenic than the smoke that passed through it. Indeed, when analyzed by thin layer chromatography, two carcinogenic agents were identified in the water itself, while only one was identified in the water filtered smoke. Therefore, water filtration removes at least two known carcinogens that would normally be found in the smoke.
Recently, Dr. Gary Huber at the University of Texas and colleagues from Harvard's School of Public Health conducted a cellular toxicity study of marijuana and tobacco smoke.8 This research group showed that passing marijuana or tobacco smoke through water, or even exposing the smoke to a wetted surface of about 48 square inches, effectively removed substances (acrolein and acetaldehyde) which are toxic to alveolar macrophages. Alveolar macrophages are one of the major defense cells of the lung and are an important component of the immune system. When the macrophages were exposed to smoke that was not water filtered, there was a marked impairment of their capacity to kill bacteria. When the smoke was water-filtered, however, there was no reduction in the bactericidal ability of the macrophages, suggesting that marijuana smoke that has been passed through sufficient water will have less impact on the immune system than marijuana smoke that has not been water-filtered. This intriguing finding would be of particular importance when treating patients with the AIDS wasting syndrome.
The laboratory results discussed above parallel what is known from studying human tobacco-smoking populations. Thus, there is substantial epidemiological evidence that among tobacco smokers, those who smoke through a water pipe have a much lower incidence of carcinoma than those who smoke cigarettes or smoke a "regular" pipe or cigars.6,7,9,10
In summary, it appears that water filtration can be effective in removing components from marijuana smoke that are known toxicants, while allowing the THC to pass through relatively intact. The effectiveness of toxicant removal is related to the smoke's water contact area. Specially designed water pipes, incorporating particulate filters and gas dispersion frits would likely be most effective in this regard; the gas dispersion frit serves to break up the smoke into very fine bubbles, thereby increasing its water contact area. While individuals vary greatly in their smoking technique, state of health, dosing regimen, and so on, it seems that many patients could benefit from the use of water pipes to deliver THC. This would allow patients to titrate their dose easily while reducing the health hazard associated with smoke.
REFERENCES
1) Spronck, H.J.W.; Salemink, C.A.; Alikaridis,F.; Papadakis,D. Pyrolysis of cannabinoids: a model experiment in the study of cannabis smoking. Bulletin on Narcotics, 30, 55-59 (1978)
2) Alikaridis,Ph.; Michael,C.M.; Papadakis,D.P.; Kephalas, T.A.; Kiburis,J. Scientific Research on Cannabis. No. 55. Chemical aspects of cannabis smoke produced through water pipes. United Nations Secretariat ST/SOA/SER.S/55, GE. 77-7339, 1-9 (17 June 1977)
3) Savaki,H.E.; Cunha,J.; Carlini,E.A.; Kephalas, T.A. Pharmacological activity of three fractions obtained by smoking cannabis through a water pipe. Bulletin on Narcotics, 28, 49-56 (1976)
4) Lazaratou,H.; Moschovakis,A.; Armagandis,A.; Kapsambelis, V.; Kiburis,J.; Kephalas, T.A. The pharmacological effect of fractions obtained by smoking cannabis through a water pipe. II. A second fractionation step. Experientia, 36, 1407-1408 (1980)
5) Hoffman, D.; Rathkamp, G.; Wynder, E.L. Comparison of the yields of several selected components in the smoke from different tobacco products. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 31, 627-635 (1963)
6) Salem, E.S. Studies on special smoking patterns in Egypt. 5th World Conference on Smoking and Health, Winnipeg, Canada. July 10-15, 1983. Eds: Bola, P; Wright, F.E.
7) Salem, E.S.; Sami, A. Studies on pulmonary manifestations of goza smokers. Chest, 65, 599 (1974)
8) Huber, G.L.; First, M.W.; Grubner, O. Marijuana and tobacco smoke gas-phase cytotoxins. Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, 40, 629-636 (1991)
9) Lubin,J.H.; Li, J.-Y.; Xuan, X.-Z.; Cai,S.K.; Luo, Q.-S.; Yang, L.-F.; Wang, J.-Z.; Yang,L.; Blot, W.J. Risk of lung cancer among cigarette and pipe smokers in Southern China. International Journal of Cancer, 51, 390-395 (1992)
10) Srivastava, Y.C. Oral Leukoplakia. International Surgery, 58, 614-618 (1973)
Acknowledgement:
This study was supported by a grant from MAPS
2105 Robinson Avenue
Sarasota FL 34232
email: [email protected] (Sylvia Thyssen, Network Coordinator)
Copyright © 1995 by Nicholas V. Cozzi, Ph.D. This document may be freely copied and distributed, subject to the following limitations: 1) This document must be copied in its entirety, without modifications; 2) This document may NOT be copied for commercial purposes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dont get me wrong.. i love blunts...
but i prefer my bong or bubbler anyday.. i just like blunts when smoking with multiple ppl.. but this doesnt mean i dont enjoy a personal blunt everynow n then.. lol
but i prefer my bong or bubbler anyday.. i just like blunts when smoking with multiple ppl.. but this doesnt mean i dont enjoy a personal blunt everynow n then.. lol
G
GR8shoeBaDizzle
blunts are to harsh and mess up the taste and smell of the trees
Overgrow_OG
Member
if all i have is a nik i will smoke some bowls and bongs and stuff but if i have at least a dub i will roll a blunt
Whether or not you enjoy smoking blunts is a topic for the many other threads regarding blunts.
It's funny that some of you think blunt smoke is harsh, because some of my friends that grew up on blunts say the same things about bongs! (blunts are smoother)
But back on the subject at hand:
The reason I am curious is that my lungs are pretty fuc*ed right now from being sick and refusing to stop smoking, and I suspect when I smoke blunts it is much worse for my lungs because of all the extra chemicals.
It seems like a swisher wrapper would be like smoking 1 cig, so if you smoked like 5 a day (not that I do) don't you guys think your lungs would be much worse off that just smoking that normally?
It's funny that some of you think blunt smoke is harsh, because some of my friends that grew up on blunts say the same things about bongs! (blunts are smoother)
But back on the subject at hand:
The reason I am curious is that my lungs are pretty fuc*ed right now from being sick and refusing to stop smoking, and I suspect when I smoke blunts it is much worse for my lungs because of all the extra chemicals.
It seems like a swisher wrapper would be like smoking 1 cig, so if you smoked like 5 a day (not that I do) don't you guys think your lungs would be much worse off that just smoking that normally?
THC•20
Member
If you feel you think something is making your health worse then why are you doing it? If it's bothering you that much then stop smoking blunts. You don't have to follow the trend or stay up with the current fashion, if you know tobacco smoke is bad for you and they ruin your experience then don't use them. I used to smoke blunts 99% of the first few years that I started smokin every day but now I probably only smoke blunts once or twice in a month, if that.
U
UBER21
In my opinion nothing beats a nicely rolled blunt and u can deff taste it.....I also have a pipe and a bong and find myself smoking a nice blunt more often than the others I guess to me it has always been about how one would of smoked it hundreds of years ago...just feels more natural smoking out of a leaf....lol....
THC•20
Member
I'd sure like to know what brand of blunts you guys are smoking. I get the taste of my weed too with a blunt but it's "ruined". I still have one every now and again but not as often as I used to. Now joints on the other hand give me the full flavor of my weed. The bowl gives me nothing but the weed taste but I still gotta say for some reason joints own for that. Btw hundreds of years ago they'd just throw a bunch of weed in a camp fire, grab a tent and get lifted 
G
Guest
Got me a few genuine Cuban cigars and am gonna roll a fat blunt when i get enough weed to fill one with. I'll take the tobacco out with some tweezers or tap it out as it's a bitch to break open a leaf and stick it back together again.
I don't like those flavoured blunt papers much, it's just thick sugary brown paper.
I don't like those flavoured blunt papers much, it's just thick sugary brown paper.
I like blunts...
When I was younger, all I had access to was mids, so bowls of that stuff was kinda unpleasant. I could smoke a blunt by myself, and catch a pretty nice buzz. Not to mention, they are portable, only need lighting once, and are disposable once finished.
This is going somewhere, I promise. After a few years of nothing but blunts, I was beginning to notice that they were starting to make me a little sick everytime I smoked one. I'd get this really thick congestion in my head, like a miniature cold; not to mention, when I'd blow my nose, I'd expel some of that nasty dark blunt tar.
Since then, I've cut back the amount of L's I smoke, especially since I've had access to (as well as grown my own) nugget. Generally, I'll smoke bowls or bonghits, and blaze the occasional blunt with no ill side effects.
When I was younger, all I had access to was mids, so bowls of that stuff was kinda unpleasant. I could smoke a blunt by myself, and catch a pretty nice buzz. Not to mention, they are portable, only need lighting once, and are disposable once finished.
This is going somewhere, I promise. After a few years of nothing but blunts, I was beginning to notice that they were starting to make me a little sick everytime I smoked one. I'd get this really thick congestion in my head, like a miniature cold; not to mention, when I'd blow my nose, I'd expel some of that nasty dark blunt tar.
Since then, I've cut back the amount of L's I smoke, especially since I've had access to (as well as grown my own) nugget. Generally, I'll smoke bowls or bonghits, and blaze the occasional blunt with no ill side effects.
Last edited:
